Family Violence, Anger Expression Styles, and Adolescent Dating Violence

J Union Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 Dec 28.

Published in terminal edited form equally:

J Marriage Fam. 2022 Aug; 77(seven): 1016–1030.

Published online 2022 Apr 21. doi:10.1111/jomf.12200

PMCID: PMC4692054

NIHMSID: NIHMS742688

Longitudinal Mediators of Relations Betwixt Family Violence and Adolescent Dating Aggression Perpetration

Vangie A. Foshee

^*Department of Health Behavior, 317 Rosenau Hall, Academy of N Carolina, Chapel Colina, NC 29975-7440

Beverly L. Fortson

^**Sectionalization of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Command and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4017

Linda A. Valle

^**Partition of Violence Prevention, National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4017

Matthew J. Breiding

^**Sectionalization of Violence Prevention, National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4017

Melissa T. Merrick

^**Division of Violence Prevention, National Middle for Injury Prevention and Command, Centers for Illness Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4017

Abstract

Few longitudinal studies accept examined the pathways through which family violence leads to dating aggression. In the current study the authors used 3 waves of information obtained from 8th- and 9th-grade adolescents (North = ane,965) to examine the hypotheses that the prospective relationship betwixt witnessing family violence and directly experiencing violence and physical dating aggression perpetration is mediated by three constructs: (a) normative behavior almost dating aggression (norms), (b) anger dysregulation, and (c) depression. Results from cross-lagged regression models advise that the human relationship betwixt having been hit by an adult and dating assailment is mediated by changes in norms and anger dysregulation, but not low. No evidence of indirect effects from witnessing family violence to dating aggression was found through any of the proposed mediators. Taken together, the findings suggest that anger dysregulation and normative beliefs are potential targets for dating corruption prevention efforts aimed at youth who take directly experienced violence.

Keywords: dating violence, development, intergenerational transmission, intimate partner violence, longitudinal, path analysis

Theory and empirical evidence propose that youth who are exposed to family unit violence are at increased risk for involvement in dating aggression (DA) during adolescence (Jouriles, McDonald, Mueller, & Grych, 2012; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Wekerle et al., 2001; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, & Grasley, 2004) and immature adulthood (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998). Nonetheless few empirical studies have examined the pathways through which family unit violence may lead to teen DA perpetration (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012), and the methods used by these studies constrains our ability to draw strong conclusions. For instance, prior research has used correlational (Boivin, Lavoie, Hebert, & Gagne, 2012; Clarey, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2010; Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Wolf & Foshee, 2003) or two-time-point (Brengden, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001; Jouriles, Mueller, Rosenfield, McDonald, & Dodson, 2012; Lavoie et al., 2002; Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998; Wolfe et al., 2004) analytic approaches, precluding the power to found temporal relationships between family violence exposure and the mediators and/or between the mediators and DA (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Furthermore, with ane exception (Jouriles, Mueller, et al., 2012), previous mediation studies likewise take used methods for detecting mediation that take been shown to have low power for detecting indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). As such, findings from past studies only partially inform the identification of mediators that may inform theory and prevention efforts (Wolfe et al., 2004).

In the current study we addressed these limitations by using longitudinal data to assess multiple mediators of the clan between family violence and DA perpetration by means of analytic techniques that accordingly accost the temporal ordering of the variables under study and that have high power for detecting indirect effects. We examined the additive (i.east., independent) furnishings of both witnessing interparental violence and direct experiencing violence perpetrated by an adult. In addition, some research indicates that there may be sex differences in the etiology of dating violence (for a review, see Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012) and specifically suggests that the pathways linking family violence and DA may differ for boys and girls (e.g., Calvete & Orue, 2013; Jouriles, Mueller, et al., 2012; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). Therefore, nosotros explored the potential for the mediating pathways to differ for boys and girls.

Groundwork

A number of different theoretical perspectives take been invoked in conceptualizing potential pathways through which family unit violence may lead to DA and other antisocial behaviors (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012; Foshee et al., 1999; Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012), including social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), stress theory (Cicchetti & Walker, 2001), social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), trauma models (Wekerle et al., 2001), and data-processing models (Huesmann, 1988). Drawing on these theories and empirical research, Jouriles and colleagues (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012) proposed an integrated mediation model, referred to herein as the cognitive-emotional pathways model (CEPM), which emphasizes the role of both cognitive and emotional mechanisms that may explain relations between family unit violence and DA. In the electric current study we focused on iii potential mediators described past the CEPM: normative beliefs that are more accepting of DA and two indicators of emotion dysregulation (anger dysregulation and depressive symptoms). According to the CEPM, witnessing or directly experiencing family unit violence may atomic number 82 to changes in these mediating constructs and, consequently, to increased take chances for perpetrating DA (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012).

The role of normative beliefs as a mediator is supported by social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) and data-processing models (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997), both of which suggest that exposure to tearing models communicates permissiveness for aggressive behavior and leads to the development of normative beliefs that are more than accepting of DA. Norms, in plough, "regulate respective actions by prescribing the range of allowable and prohibited behaviors" (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997, p. 409). As such, adolescents who are more accepting of DA may be more than likely to engage in abusive behaviors with romantic partners because they view such behavior as allowable. In that location is some empirical support for normative beliefs equally a mediator of the linkage between family violence and DA, although findings vary past sex (Foshee et al., 1999; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Wolfe et al., 2004). For example, Foshee et al. (1999), using cross-exclusive data, found that norms mediated relations betwixt family unit violence and DA for boys and girls, whereas Kinsfogel and Grych (2004) found evidence of a mediation pathway through norms for boys only.

The function of emotion dysregulation, in particular acrimony dysregulation, as a mediator of relations between family unit violence and DA has also been supported. Developmental psychopathology models propose that the trauma and stress caused past exposure to family violence can overtax an individual'southward ability to effectively process, manage, and modulate responses to emotions such as acrimony (J. Kim & Cicchetti, 2010; H. K. Kim, Pears, Capaldi, & Owen, 2009; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002). Children and adolescents who are exposed to family unit violence may as well larn destructive or maladaptive responses to anger through caregiver modeling and reinforcement (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012; Wolf & Foshee, 2003), and exposure to family unit violence and harsh parenting have been linked to anger and emotion dysregulation in children (J. Kim & Cicchetti, 2010; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002) and adolescents (Asgeirsdottir, Sigfusdottir, Gudjonsson, & Sigurdsson, 2011; H. 1000. Kim et al., 2009). Adolescents who are unable to effectively regulate emotions such every bit acrimony may experience conflict in interactions with romantic partners because they tend to go "overly angry and brandish inappropriate emotional responses that are likely to cause difficulties in social interactions" (H. One thousand. Kim et al., 2009, p. 586). Consequent with this reasoning, cross-sectional (Clarey et al., 2010; Foshee et al., 1999; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Wolf & Foshee, 2003) and 2-time-bespeak longitudinal research (Wolfe et al., 2004) suggests that trauma-related acrimony and anger regulation (or expression) mediate associations between family violence and DA, although results are inconsistent and vary by sex and the blazon of family violence examined. For case, Wolfe et al. (2004) found stronger prove of a arbitration pathway from kid maltreatment to DA through traumarelated anger for girls than for boys; in contrast, Kinsfogel and Grych (2004) found evidence of a mediation pathway from interparental conflict to DA for boys, simply not for girls.

The part of low, as a potential mediator between family violence exposure and DA, is also consequent with emotion dysregulation theory, in which difficulties in managing negative touch on or maintaining positive affect are hypothesized to result in low (Weinberg & Klonsky, 2009; Yap, Allen, & Sheeber, 2007). Others take suggested that the trauma and stress produced by family violence exposure lead to neurobiological changes that increase depression risk (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012; Kessler & Magee, 1993). Margolin and Gordis (2000) suggested that family unit violence exposure may lead some youth to experience unworthy of being kept safe and blame themselves for the violence, which can contribute to negative self-perceptions and internalizing bug such as low. Low, in plow, may increment the risk for poor human relationship functioning and DA. Relative to their nondepressed peers, adolescents with low may experience less competent and less secure in their peer relationships and may be more likely to react poorly when faced with relationship stress, thereby contributing to poor relationship functioning and interpersonal conflict (Vujeva & Furman, 2011). Consistent with this reasoning, low has been linked to adolescent relationship conflict (Vujeva & Furman, 2011) and DA (Cleveland, Herrera, & Stuewig, 2003; Foshee, Reyes, & Ennett, 2010; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003).

THE Current Written report

In the electric current study nosotros examined hypotheses that the relationship betwixt witnessing family violence and directly experiencing violence perpetrated by an adult and physical DA is mediated by three constructs: (a) normative beliefs about DA, (b) anger dysregulation, and (c) depression (see Figure 1 for the study conceptual model). We also explored the potential for sex differences in indirect effects, but no explicit hypotheses were posited given the inconsistent findings in the extant research described in a higher place. Because witnessing and directly experiencing violence co-occur (Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008), we examined the additive effects of each exposure type by modeling them simultaneously as separate correlated predictors.

Conceptual Model of Mediation Hypotheses.

This written report builds on previous investigations of the processes linking family violence and DA by using longitudinal panel mediation models to examine study hypotheses across 3 waves of data. This rigorous methodological approach appropriately addressed the temporality of relations between family violence and the mediators and between the mediators and DA (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Both single- and multiple-mediator models were estimated, the latter of which appropriately controlled for correlations among the mediators examined (MacKinnon, 2008) and allowed the states to pit the cognitive and emotional mediators against one another within a unmarried model. Indirect (mediated) effects for each mediator were assessed using bootstrapping, a powerful technique for detecting indirect effects. Furthermore, because Waves 1 and 2 were separated by a seven-month period, whereas Waves two and three were separated by a 1-year interval, we were able to examine arbitration effects across different lag intervals (defined and described in detail below). Methodologists have noted the importance of considering fourth dimension lags when examining mediation processes; in item, Collins and Graham (2002) noted that a mediated effect that is detected using a brusque time lag betwixt assessments may decay and no longer be detected when assessed across longer intervals.

METHOD

Study Design and Sample

The analyses for this article used data from a randomized control trial of an adolescent dating violence prevention plan chosen Safe Dates. All public schools with either eighth or ninth grades in one primarily rural county were randomly assigned to either treatment or control weather. Wave 1 (Time 1 [T1]) data were collected when participants were in the fall semester of the eighth and ninth grades. Wave two (Time 2 [T2]) data were collected approximately 7 months after (ane calendar month later programme activities had terminated), and Wave 3 (Time 3 [T3]) information were collected 19 months after baseline. All data were nerveless in schools via cocky-administered questionnaires. See Foshee et al.'southward (1996) article for details on study design and data drove procedures.

Adolescents were eligible for the study if they were enrolled in the 8th or ninth course in the public school system of one primarily rural county. Parental consent for completing questionnaires was obtained from 84% (n = two,045) of the 2,434 eligible adolescents, and T1 questionnaires were completed by 96% (northward = 1,965) of the adolescents whose parents gave consent. Approximately ninety% (due north = 1,759) of T1 participants completed T3 follow-upward questionnaires. Of the i,965 baseline participants, 49% (n =958) were in the eighth grade, 50% (northward = 989) were female, 22% (n = 440) reported that the highest level of education achieved by either their mother or male parent was high schoolhouse or less, 73% (north = 1,439) were White, xviii% (n = 363) were Black, and viii% (due north = 163) were other race/ethnicity.

Measures

All measures were based on adolescent self-report. Measures of violence exposure and directly experiencing violence perpetrated by an adult were fatigued from T1. Measures of the mediators (normative beliefs, responses to anger, and depression) were drawn from T1 and T2, and measures of DA were drawn from T1, T2, and T3. Mediator and outcome measures were log transformed to reduce skew and kurtosis. See Table ane for descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix of study variables for females (in a higher place the diagonal) and males (beneath the diagonal).

Table 1

Correlation Matrix of Chief Study Variables (north = i,965)

Variable	1	ii	three	4	five	6	7	8	9	10	11
i. Witnessing IPV	—	.25	.18	.13	.13	.xi	.xiv	.thirteen	.09	.09	.04
2. Hit past an developed	.33	—	.19	.17	.10	.06	.12	.24	.11	.07	.08
3. Depression (T1)	.13	.20	—	.25	.12	.18	.57	.25	.07	.xiv	.08
4. Anger dysregulation (T1)	.fourteen	.16	.30	—	.23	.29	.26	.79	.20	.27	.22
5. Normative beliefs (T1)	.14	.xiii	.thirteen	.35	—	.32	.08	.19	.50	.21	.14
half dozen. Dating aggression (T1)	.16	.11	.15	.20	.19	—	.13	.23	.27	.47	.39
seven. Depression (T2)	.11	.20	.44	.24	.13	.09	—	.29	.12	.20	.12
viii. Anger dysregulation (T2)	.xiii	.15	.18	.73	.30	.fourteen	.26	—	.25	.32	.22
ix. Normative behavior (T2)	.x	.14	.03	.21	.48	.18	.12	.33	—	.36	.16
10. Dating assailment (T2)	.11	.11	.10	.xvi	.16	.18	.08	.22	.36	—	.36
11. Dating aggression (T3)	.03	.08	.01	.10	.fifteen	.19	.02	.08	.17	.12	—
M	1.32	1.35	1.73	0.81	0.53	0.67	i.65	0.85	0.49	0.71	one.21
SD	0.70	0.73	1.04	0.70	0.47	2.62	1.05	0.71	0.52	ii.82	four.19
%	22	25				xiv				fourteen	20

Violence exposure. Witnessing interparental violence (IPV) was measured by 1 item asking, "How many times have y'all seen one of your parents hit the other parent?" Response options ranged from never (0) to 10 or more than times (three). Hit by an adult was assessed by the question, "How many times has an adult ever hit you with the purpose of hurting y'all?" Response options ranged from never (0) to ten or more times (3). Kid abuse reporting requirements precluded request about more severe kid corruption or the specific relationship between the perpetrator(s) and kid (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001).

Mediators

We assessed iii mediators of the relation between family violence and DA. Normative beliefs about DA were assessed with viii items that addressed the extent to which adolescents were accepting of concrete DA under various circumstances (e.g., "Information technology is OK for a male child/girl to hit their male child/girlfriend if he/she did something to make him/her mad."). Response options ranged from strongly hold (3) to strongly disagree (0). Items were averaged to create a blended measure (Foshee et al., 2001; Cronbach's α = .78). Anger dysregulation was measured by asking adolescents, "During the last six months when y'all were angry with someone how oft did y'all do the post-obit things …?" Five subversive responses to acrimony (e.thousand., "I made nasty comments virtually the person to others") were listed. Response options ranged from never (0) to very often (3). Items were averaged to construct a blended response-to-anger variable (Cronbach'due south α = .74). Depression was assessed with v items from a scale developed past Kandel and Davies (1982). Adolescents indicated how often in the past 6 months they had felt bothered or troubled past things like feeling unhappy, sad, or depressed. Response options for each item ranged from never (0) to all of the time (4). Items were averaged to form a composite measure out of depression (Cronbach's α = .87).

Physical DA

Physical DA was measured with ten items from the Safe Dates Dating Violence Perpetration scale (Foshee et al., 1996). Adolescents were asked, "How many times have you done the following things to a person that yous have been on a date with? Only include when you did it to him/her showtime. In other words, don't count it if you did it in cocky-defense." Ten acts were listed (east.g., having "hitting or slapped," "bit," or "tried to choke" a dating partner). Response options ranged from never (0) to ten or more times (3). Items were summed to create a composite perpetration score for each wave of information (average Cronbach'south α = .94); at each moving ridge, nondaters were given a score of 0 on this measure.

Analytic Approach and Model Specification

We tested the hypotheses via path analysis of lagged panel mediation models (Cole & Maxwell, 2003) using a model-building approach recommended by MacKinnon (2008) for multiple-mediator models. Specifically, we first estimated split up "simple" mediation models for each of the three mediators. Equally depicted in Figure 2, to reflect the hypothesized mediation processes, longitudinal pathways were estimated from the two violence exposure measures (witnessing IPV and having been hit past an adult) to the T2 measure of the mediator (paths a_x1 and a_x2, respectively), from the T1 measure of the mediator (M) to DA (Y) assessed at T2 (path b_T1), and from the T2 measure of Chiliad to the T3 measure of DA (path b_T2). To address the potential for prior levels of the dependent variables (Thousand and Y) to confound associations, the model further included autoregressive (AR) pathways between T1 and T2 measures of the mediator (AR_m), between T1 and T2 DA (AR_yT1), and between T2 and T3 DA (AR_yT2). In improver, direct pathways were estimated from the two T1 violence exposure measures to T2 and T3 DA (results not shown, for clarity), and covariances (depicted past the curved arrows) were allowed betwixt all variables assessed at the aforementioned time point. Pathways were also estimated between dating condition, treatment condition, and grade level (control variables) and T2 and T3 outcomes (results not shown for clarity). Finally, on the basis of model modification indices 1 additional AR pathway was estimated between T1 and T3 DA beyond all models (results not shown for clarity).

Longitudinal Simple Mediation Model.

Notation: For clarity, control variables and direct pathways from the family violence indicators (X_ane and 10_ii) to dating aggression (Y_T2 and Y_T3) and from T1 dating aggression (Y_T1) to T3 dating assailment (Y_t3) are not depicted. IPV = interparental violence; AR =autoregressive pathway.

The presence of statistical mediation was determined via assessment of the indirect (mediated) effect of X on Y through M (MacKinnon & Fairchild, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Following the recommendations of Cole and Maxwell (2003), we estimated two distinct indirect effects: (a) a half-longitudinal indirect issue (HLIE) and (b) a fully longitudinal indirect effect (FLIE), both of which appropriately accost temporality between Ten and Yard and between One thousand and Y. Specifically, for each model both HLIEs and FLIEs were calculated as follows: HLIEs were estimated as the product of the parameter judge for path a (a_x1 or a_x2, reflecting the effect of the T1 violence exposure indicator on the T2 mediator controlling for the T1 mediator score) with path b_T1 (reflecting the issue of the T1 mediator on T2 DA controlling for the T1 DA score). FLIEs were calculated every bit the product of the parameter judge for path a and path b_T2 (reflecting the effect of the T2 mediator on T3 DA controlling for T2 DA). Nosotros calculated both HLIEs and FLIEs because the fourth dimension lag between measures of the mediator (Thou) and DA (Y) for the get-go lag was shorter (seven months) than for the second lag (1 year). On the basis of previous enquiry (Collins & Graham, 2002), nosotros reasoned that it could exist possible for a shorter interval to better capture the causal effect of the mediator on DA before it started to decay; estimating both HLIEs and FLIEs enabled us to appraise indirect effects beyond different M–Y lag intervals. Beyond all models, standard errors and bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) for indirect effects (HLIEs and FLIEs) were based on 5,000 bootstrap resamples. Bootstrapping, which is a nonparametric method of estimating standard errors and CIs, does non brand assumptions about the sampling distribution of the indirect result and provides more than accurate Blazon I error rates and greater power for detecting indirect furnishings than other competing methods (Hayes, 2013; MacKinnon et al., 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Later assessing model fit and indirect effects inside each single-mediator model, we estimated a multiple-mediator model that combined the unmarried-mediator models to simultaneously include pathways from the violence exposure measures to all three mediators and from the mediators to DA. HLIEs and FLIEs were estimated for each mediator and represent the unique indirect effects of the violence exposure indicator on DA through a particular mediator conditional on the presence of other mediators in the model. Finally, nosotros used a multiple-grouping approach to appraise the potential for sex differences in the indirect furnishings in the multiple-mediator model. In the first multiple-grouping model, all structural parameters were free to vary by sex. Next, constraints on parameters were imposed in the following gild: (1) a and b pathways (the indirect effects), (2) pathways from the violence exposure indicators to DA (direct effects), (3) autoregressive pathways, and (4) residual variances and covariances. We used a nested chi-square deviation test to decide whether these constraints significantly affected model fit.

All models were estimated using Mplus Version seven.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) and controlled for treatment condition, grade level, and dating status. We evaluated model fit with the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the comparative fit alphabetize (CFI), and the root-mean-foursquare error of approximation (RMSEA). Models with a TLI and CFI of at least .95 and an RMSEA value of .05 or less were considered to have good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Direct maximum-likelihood estimation was used to deal with missing data (Bollen & Curran, 2006).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The proportion of adolescents who reported whatsoever physical DA ranged from xiv% to xx%, and prevalence rates were higher for girls than for boys beyond all fourth dimension points; at Wave three, 25% of girls and 15% of boys reported engaging in any physical DA (p < .001). Witnessing IPV and having been hit by an adult were significantly correlated with each other (r = .25, p <.001, for girls; r = .33, p < .001, for boys), suggesting in that location is significant overlap in exposure to these ii types of violence. Witnessing IPV and having been hit by an developed were significantly correlated with T1 and T2 measures of the mediators. Witnessing IPV was correlated with DA at T1 and T2, but not at T3; having been striking by an developed was correlated with DA at all three time points (see Table 1). Preliminary longitudinal models examining the total effects of T1 violence on T3 DA controlling for T1 DA suggested that having been hitting by an developed (b = .51, p= .04) was longitudinally associated with T3 DA, but having witnessed IPV (b= −.15, p= .56) was not.

Model Results

Parameter estimates, bootstrapped standard errors, and 95% CIs for indirect effects for all models are presented in Table 2. Models i, 2, and 3 correspond to the single-mediator models for norms, acrimony dysregulation, and low, respectively. Model 4 corresponds to the multiple-mediator model.

Table two

Unstandardized Path Coefficients, Bootstrapped Standard Errors (in Parentheses), Indirect Effects, and 95% Bias-Corrected Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals (in Brackets) From Mediation Models of Relations Between Family Violence and Concrete Dating Assailment (north = one,965)

		Path			Indirect outcome
Family violence (T1)	Mediator (T2)	a	bt1	bt2	HLIE a×bt1 [95% CI]	FLIE a ×bt2 [95% CI]
Model 1
Witness IPV	Normative beliefs	.02 (.11)	.15 (.05)*	.21 (.07)**	.003 [−.030, .040]	.005 [−.041, .054]
Hit by an adult		.26 (.ten)**			.036 [.01, .097]**	.043 [.012, .130]**
Model ii
Witness IPV	Anger dysregulation	−.02 (.08)	.14 (.04)***	.11 (.05)*	−.003 [−.028, .020]	−.002 [−.025, .017]
Hit past an adult		.34 (.08)***			.047 [.021, .090]**	.039 [.009, .084]*
Model three
Witness IPV	Depression	.22 (.14)	.05 (.03)	.02 (.04)	.011 [−.003, .045]	.003 [−.013, .034]
Hit by an adult		.thirty (.xiii)*			.015[−.002, .050]	.009 [−.018, .036]
Model 4
Witness IPV	Normative beliefs	.05 (.eleven)	.12 (.05)*	.nineteen (.07)**	.006 [−.016, .043]	.010 [−.027, .059]
Hit by an adult		.26 (.ten)**			.031 [.005, .084]*	.049 [.010, .121]**
Witness IPV	Anger dysregulation	−.01 (.08)	.08 (.04)*	.08 (.05)†	−.001 [−.018, .012]	−.001 [−.019, .013]
Hit by an adult		.36 (.08)***			.027 [.004, .062]*	.028 [−.002, .071]†
Witness IPV	Depression	.23 (.14)†	.06 (.03)† .	001 (.04)	.014 [−.001, .050]	.000 [−.022, .024]
Hit past an adult		.31 (.13)*			.001 [.019, .054]*	.000 [−.028, .029]

Single-Mediator Models

Each unmarried-mediator model fit the data very well; across all models, the CFI and TLI were greater than .95 and the RMSEA was less than .05. Contrary to the study hypotheses, having witnessed IPV was not institute to indirectly influence DA through any of the proposed mediators; none of the HLIEs or FLIEs were statistically significant for witnessing IPV (run across Table ii). In addition, findings from each model suggest that having witnessed IPV was not prospectively associated with norms (p =.84), anger dysregulation (p = .fourscore), or depression (p = .xi).

Consistent with expectations, the findings propose that having been striking by an adult indirectly influenced DA through normative beliefs (HLIE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.10], FLIE =0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.thirteen]) and anger dysregulation (HLIE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.09], FLIE =0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.08]); notwithstanding, no evidence was found for indirect effects through depression (see Table ii). As expected, having been hit by an adult at T1 predicted increased acceptance of DA (i.e., normative beliefs; p =.008), anger dysregulation (p < .001), and low (p = .02) at T2. In plow, both norms and anger dysregulation predicted DA beyond both lag one (path b_T1; p= 0.004 for norms and p<.001 for acrimony dysregulation) and lag two (path b_T2; p = 0.003 for norms and p = .02 anger dysregulation). Contrary to expectations, depression was not prospectively associated with DA across either lag (p = .14 for Lag 1, p = .lxx for Lag 2).

Multiple-Mediator Model

Model iv (multiple mediators) also fit the data well (CFI =.98, TLI =.96, RMSEA =.04, 95% CI [.03, .04]). Results from this model are mostly consequent with the single-mediator model findings reported above, although some parameter estimates became insignificant or were reduced to marginal significance (see Table 2). Specifically, consistent with the unmarried-mediator model findings, witnessing IPV was non found to indirectly influence DA through whatsoever of the proposed mediators. Witnessing IPV was marginally predictive of depression (p = .09) but did not predict normative beliefs (p = .62) or responses to anger (p = .89).

Also consistent with single-mediator model findings was that having been hitting by an adult was prospectively associated with normative beliefs (p = .006), acrimony dysregulation (p< .001), and depression (p = .02). Anger dysregulation (p = .04) and normative beliefs (p= .03) were significantly prospectively associated with DA across Lag 1 (path b_T1); Lag 1 furnishings for depression (p = .07) were marginally significant. Normative beliefs (p= .007), nonetheless, was the merely mediator significantly associated with DA across Lag 2 (path b_T2); Lag 2 effects were marginally pregnant (p = .096) for acrimony dysregulation and not significant for low (p = .98). Consequent with the report hypotheses, half-longitudinal indirect effects of having been hitting by an adult on DA were statistically significant through all three mediators; fully longitudinal indirect effects were signifcant through norms and marginally significant through anger dysregulation.

Multiple-Grouping Modeling of Sex activity Differences

Multiple-group modeling began with a model that allowed all structural parameters to vary for boys and girls. This unconstrained model fit the data well, χ²(72) = 190.03, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA =.04, 95% CI [.03, .05]. We and then constrained all a and b pathways to be equivalent for boys and girls and conducted a chi-square difference exam to decide whether constraints led to a meaning decrement in model fit. The chi-square difference exam was not significant, χ²(12)= thirteen.84, p = 31, indicating that the forcefulness of the indirect furnishings through each mediator did not differ for boys and girls. Constraints on direct pathways from the family violence indicators to DA at T1 and T2 also did non influence model ft, χ^two(4) = 1.37, p = .85; however, constraints on AR pathways, χ²(6) = 18.00, p = .006, and residuum variances (RVs), χ²(5)= 180.32, p<.001, were statistically significant. Subsequent post hoc testing of constraints on each private AR pathway and RV suggested that AR pathways for depression, χ²(1) = 7.43, p = .006, and DA, χⁱⁱ(3) = vii.88, p = .048, differed for boys and girls, and RVs for all variables differed for boys and girls (p < .001 for all RV constraints). Parameter estimates suggested that the AR pathways for depression and DA, which alphabetize the relative stability in these constructs over time, were stronger for girls than for boys. In addition, RVs (unexplained variance in the dependent variables) were larger for boys than for girls.

In the last multiple-grouping model, pathways that were institute to be invariant per the tests described above, including all indirect effects of family violence exposure on DA through the proposed mediators, were constrained to exist equivalent for males and females. Pathways that were establish to differ past sex were allowed to vary across groups. This model fit the information well, χ²(88) = 205.24, CFI = .97, TLI = .96; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI [.03, .04]; parameter estimates and standard errors from this model are presented in Effigy 3. Consistent with the unmarried-grouping multiple-mediator model, no indirect effects were found for witnessing IPV. Besides consistent with the single-grouping model, having been hit by an developed was found to have an indirect effect on DA through normative beliefs (HLIE = 0.041, 95% CI [0.006, 0.106]; FLIE = 0.034, 95% CI [0.003, 0.096]) and anger dysregulation (HLIE = 0.033, 95% CI [0.007, 0.069]; FLIE = 0.031, 95% CI [0.000, 0.076]), although the fully longitudinal indirect result for anger dysregulation was just marginally significant; no half-or fully longitudinal indirect effects were constitute through depression (HLIE = 0.003, 95% CI [−0.017, 0.034]; FLIE = 0.005, 95% CI [−0.020, 0.036]).

Longitudinal Multiple Mediation Model Predicting Dating Assailment (n=1,965).

Notation: For clarity, control variables, covariances betwixt variables measured at the same time betoken, and parameter estimates for pathways that were not statistically significant at p <.10 are not shown. Parameter estimates for pathways that were found to differ by sex are provided to a higher place and beneath pathway lines for females (F, n = 989) and males (Thousand, northward = 976) respectively. †p <.10. *p<.05. **p <.01.***p <.001.

Word

To our knowledge, this is the first written report to undertake an integrated theory-driven exam of multiple mediators of the relationship betwixt direct and indirect violence exposure and DA using an analytic approach that establishes temporality between violence exposure and the proposed mediators and between the proposed mediators and adolescent DA. Consequent with expectations, findings from both single-and multiple-mediator models suggest that having been hit by an developed leads to increases in acceptance of DA, depression, and anger dysregulation. In turn, acceptance of DA and acrimony dysregulation predicted DA perpetration, although linkages betwixt anger dysregulation and DA across Lag 2 were marginally pregnant in the multiple-mediator model. Both FLIEs and HLIEs through normative beliefs and acrimony dysregulation were as well statistically significant, although FLIEs through anger dysregulation were only marginally pregnant in the multiple-mediator models. Contrary to the study hypotheses, we plant no bear witness of indirect effects from witnessing IPV to DA through any of the proposed mediators, and we found little evidence of a prospective link between low and DA. Finally, we establish no bear witness of sex activity differences in mediation pathways.

The results of the current study provide consistent evidence that normative beliefs mediate the prospective pathway between having directly experienced violence perpetrated past an adult and DA for boys and girls; both FLIEs and HLIEs through normative beliefs were statistically significant across all unmarried- and multiple-mediator models. This finding is consistent with the predictions of social learning theory and social data-processing models (Bandura, 1973; Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003; Huesmann, 1988) that propose that directly experiencing violence tin can lead youth to encode social scripts emphasizing aggressive responses to disharmonize and view the use of aggression in social relationships as adequate and useful for obtaining sure goals (due east.g., respect). These normative beliefs serve a critical office in regulating behavior by establishing what types of behavior are and are not acceptable and under what circumstances (Huesmann, 1988); thus, when faced with relationship conflict, teens who view the apply of aggression equally acceptable may exist more likely to use aggressive tactics against their romantic partners. In terms of prevention implications, this finding suggests that ane promising approach for dating corruption programs targeting teens who accept experienced family violence would be to focus on irresolute normative beliefs about DA. For example, interventions might use a cerebral restructuring arroyo designed to help youth remember well-nigh the violence they accept experienced from a new perspective, emphasize the nonnormative nature of DA and violence, and reinforce nonviolent relationship behaviors (Thompson & Trice-Blackness, 2012).

Having a more nuanced understanding of the specific types of norms responsible for the mediation and the conditions that may govern the mediation procedure would exist useful for informing prevention efforts and family violence theory. For example, the current study focused exclusively on personal injunctive norms (i.e., beliefs almost what is acceptable behavior); future research might as well examine descriptive norms (e.m., behavior nigh what others are doing) and/or social injunctive norms (e.g., beliefs about what others approve/disapprove of) equally potential mediators (Henry et al., 2000). In addition, linkages amidst violence exposure, norms, and DA may depend on corruption-related characteristics as well as individual (e.thousand., internal resiliency factors, such as self-esteem) and contextual (due east.g., peer support) factors (Herrenkohl et al., 2008). A promising artery for future research will exist to examine factors that may exacerbate or buffer the indirect upshot of violence exposure on DA through normative beliefs.

Our results also suggest that anger dysregulation mediates relations between having been hit by an adult and adolescent DA, although fully longitudinal indirect effects became marginally pregnant in multiple-mediator models. Anger dysregulation may be more than of a proximal precursor to DA, and thus its furnishings were meliorate captured past the shorter lag; as Collins and Graham (2002) noted, larger measurement intervals tin make it difficult to find linkages between dynamic variables such every bit anger dysregulation and DA that change over fourth dimension with development (Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2011; Steinberg, 2008). In full general, our findings are consequent with theoretical perspectives that suggest that violence exposure can interfere with the normative development of emotion regulation skills such equally the ability to control responses to acrimony (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012). An inability to control or inhibit maladaptive beliefs when experiencing negative emotions such every bit anger may decrease the likelihood of adaptively managing conflict in romantic relationships and increase the risk for DA. Although connected enquiry is needed, these results propose that, in addition to addressing normative beliefs, programs for youth who take been directly exposed to family unit violence could include a focus on building skills related to the regulation of anger expression. Such programs typically aim to increase awareness of emotions and teach adaptive coping skills (e.g., Gratz, 2007).

Consequent with expectations, across all models nosotros besides found a link betwixt having straight experienced violence perpetrated by an developed and depression; yet, we did not find evidence of a significant prospective link between depression and physical DA across either Lag 1 or Lag 2. Longitudinal research on the link between depression and boyish DA is scarce and inconsistent, with some studies suggesting in that location is an association only for girls (east.k., Foshee et al., 2010; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003) or only for boys (e.one thousand., Boivin et al., 2012) and others finding no association for boys or girls (Foshee et al., 2001). Consistent with our findings, longitudinal studies that have examined young adults' intimate relationships take non found show that depressive symptoms mediate relations betwixt family-of-origin experiences and human relationship quality (Ehrensaft, Knous-Westfall, & Cohen, 2011; Johnson & Galambos, 2014). Information technology may exist that depression is generally more likely to atomic number 82 to internalizing bug, such as suicidal behaviors, rather than externalizing behaviors, such every bit DA (Asgeirdottir et al., 2011). It may also be that depression is predictive of DA only among certain types of youth; for case, researchers have suggested that depression may be more than likely to generate stress (and thereby atomic number 82 to increased conflict and abuse) among individuals experiencing Axis I comorbidity and/or personality dysfunction (Harkness, Lumley, & Truss, 2008).

Contrary to the study hypotheses, we constitute no evidence that depression, normative beliefs, or acrimony dysregulation mediated the pathway from witnessing IPV to DA. In fact, in models that did non include the proposed mediators (results non shown), prospective associations between witnessing IPV and DA were reduced to nonsignificance in one case the measure of having been striking by an developed was controlled for. Given the meaning correlations between the two family violence indicators, these results suggest that witnessing IPV did non add to the prediction of physical DA above and beyond the effect of having been hit by an adult (and thus there was no pathway between witnessing IPV and DA to be mediated). This finding is consistent with other research that has found that parent-to-kid aggression (or harsh penalty) but not IPV exposure is predictive of DA (Brendgen et al., 2001; Lavoie et al., 2002; Simons et al., 1998). However, we note that the findings of studies that have examined the unique effects of child maltreatment relative to IPV exposure on developmental outcomes are very mixed (Herrenkohl et al., 2008). Moreover, our measure of witnessing IPV was limited in that it was a one-item measure that assessed one type of concrete violence (hitting), did not assess exposure to verbal IPV, and did not comprehensively assess the severity or chronicity of the IPV that was witnessed. Exposure to severe or chronic IPV may be more likely to have an event on the arbitration processes nosotros examined. Thus, it is possible that measurement limitations constrained our ability to observe a pathway between witnessing IPV and DA.

Multiple-group testing did not find testify of sex differences in the indirect furnishings examined in the electric current report. Every bit noted above, testify for sexual practice differences in the indirect effects of family violence on DA has been mixed (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012), and our findings were no exception. We acknowledge that big sample sizes are needed to take sufficient power to detect moderated mediation. Although we used methodological techniques with loftier power for detecting indirect effects, it is possible that nosotros did not detect sexual practice differences because of bereft power, in detail given the complexity of the models we examined.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged, in addition to those noted higher up. First, although we addressed temporality and controlled for several confounders in our assay, including prior levels of the dependent variables (Thou and Y), our ability to infer causal associations among the variables was limited by the fact that this was an observational rather than an experimental written report. Second, adolescents who participated in this report were from a rural county; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. Third, all measures were based on adolescent self-report and thus potentially prone to social desirability bias. 4th, almost empirical and theoretical piece of work examining associations betwixt violence exposure and DA has focused on family unit violence. The current study was designed to build on this piece of work; however, our mensurate of direct violence exposure (having been hitting past an adult) was broader and may take captured experiences of existence hit by nonfamily members. Finally, we notation that in the current study we did not examine whether and/or how these mediating processes may piece of work differently depending on relationship characteristics or patterns of relationship germination over time.

Despite these limitations, the electric current study has numerous strengths that provide a robust examination of written report hypotheses and lend credence to our findings. It is the first study to utilise three waves of information to rigorously examine mediation processes by ways of methods that establish temporality across the mediation pathways. In addition, we examined both direct and indirect violence exposure indicators likewise as multiple mediators simultaneously, allowing u.s. to establish the unique indirect effects of each violence exposure on DA through each mediator, controlling for the other mediators being examined. Finally, we assessed sexual activity differences in mediation pathways and used state-of-the-art methods (i.e., bootstrapping) to appraise the significance of indirect furnishings.

Conclusion

Nosotros found that straight exposure to violence led to increased acceptance of DA and acrimony dysregulation, which in plough led to increased risk for adolescent DA perpetration. This research is timely and relevant given that youth who are exposed to family violence and appoint in DA are likely to engage in these behaviors during machismo, thereby potentially exposing a new generation of youth to family violence (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012; H. K. Kim et al., 2009; Magdol et al., 1998). There take been recent calls for a greater understanding of the processes mediating the intergenerational manual of partner violence that could inform family violence theory and interventions designed to interrupt this cycle (Jouriles, McDonald, et al., 2012). The results from this study point to the importance of examining both cognitive and emotional processes early in adolescence equally potential mediators of family violence and DA relationships. More specifically, the findings advise that normative beliefs most DA and anger dysregulation may be two modifiable and potent targets for prevention efforts aimed at youth who have been directly exposed to violence.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention (CDC) Cooperative Agreement No. U81/CCU409964 and by an interpersonnel agency agreement between H. Luz McNaughton Reyes and the CDC (13IPA130569) and betwixt Vangie Foshee and the CDC (13IPA1303570). The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC.

Footnotes

In that location are no conflicts of involvement for any of the authors.

References

• Asgeirsdottir BB, Sigfusdottir ID, Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF. Associations between sexual corruption and family conflict/violence, self-injurious behavior, and substance apply: The mediating role of depressed mood and anger. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2011;35:210–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1973. [Google Scholar]
• Boivin South, Lavoie F, Hebert M, Gagne MH. Past victimization and dating violence perpetration in adolescence: The mediating role of emotional distress and hostility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012;27:662–684. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bollen KA, Curran PJ. Latent bend models: A structural equations perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Brendgen Thou, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Lavoie F. Reactive and proactive assailment: Predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Periodical of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001;29:293–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Calvete E, Orue I. Cognitive mechanisms of the manual of violence: Exploring gender differences amid adolescents exposed to family violence. Journal of Family Violence. 2013;28:73–84. [Google Scholar]
• Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of gamble factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse. 2012;iii:231–280. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cicchetti D, Walker EF. Stress and development: Biological and psychological consequences [Editorial] Development and Psychopathology. 2001;xiii:413–418. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clarey A, Hokoda A, Ulloa EC. Anger control and acceptance of violence equally mediators in the relationship betwixt exposure to interpersonal disharmonize and dating violence perpetration in Mexican adolescents. Journal of Family unit Violence. 2010;25:619–625. [Google Scholar]
• Cleveland HH, Herrera VM, Stuewig J. Abusive males and abused females in boyish relationships: Run a risk factor similarity and dissimilarity and the role of relationship seriousness. Journal of Family unit Violence. 2003;18:325–339. [Google Scholar]
• Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing meditational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the apply of structural equation modeling. Journal of Aberrant Psychology. 2003;112:558–577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Collins LM, Graham JW. The effect of the timing and spacing of observations in longitudinal studies of tobacco and other drug use: Temporal blueprint considerations. Drug and Booze Dependence. 2002;68:S85–S96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P. Contribution of family violence to the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Prevention Science. 2012;13:370–383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ehrensaft MK, Knous-Westfall HM, Cohen P. Directly and indirect transmission of human relationship operation across generations. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011;25:942–952. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Linder GF. Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Periodical of Marriage and the Family unit. 1999;61:331–342. [Google Scholar]
• Foshee VA, Linder GE, Bauman KE, Lang-wick SA, Arriaga XB, Heath JL, Bangdiwala S. The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1996;12:39–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Foshee VA, Linder E, MacDougall J, Bangdiwala S. Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of dating violence. Preventive Medicine. 2001;32:128–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Foshee VA, Reyes HLM, Ennett ST. An examination of sex activity and race differences in the longitudinal predictors of the initiation of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2010;19:492–516. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gratz KL. Targeting emotion dysregulation in the treatment of cocky-injury. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007;63:1091–1103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Guerra NG, Huesmann LR, Spindler AJ. Community violence exposure, social noesis, and aggression among urban elementary-school children. Kid Development. 2003;74:1507–1522. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Harkness KL, Lumley MN, Truss AE. Stress generation in boyish depression: The moderating part of child abuse and neglect. Journal of Abnormal Kid Psychology. 2008;36:421–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hayes AF. An introduction to arbitration, moderation, and conditional process assay: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Henry D, Guerra N, Huesmann R, Tolan P, Van Acker R, Eron 50. Normative influences on aggression in urban uncomplicated schoolhouse classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2000;28:59–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Herrenkohl TI, Sousa C, Tajima EA, Herrenkohl RC, Moylan CA. Intersection of child abuse and children's exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2008;9:84–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hirschi T. Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [Google Scholar]
• Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance construction analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:i–55. [Google Scholar]
• Huesmann LR. An information processing model for the evolution of aggression. Aggressive Behavior. 1988;14:13–24. [Google Scholar]
• Huesmann LR, Guerra NG. Children's normative beliefs well-nigh aggression and ambitious behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997;72:408–419. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Johnson MD, Galambos NL. Paths to intimate relationship quality from parent-adolescent relations and mental wellness. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014;76:145–160. [Google Scholar]
• Jouriles EN, McDonald R, Mueller Five, Grych JH. Youth experiences of family violence and teen dating violence perpetration: Cerebral and emotional mediators. Clinical Child and Family unit Psychology Review. 2012;fifteen:58–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jouriles EN, Mueller Five, Rosenfield D, McDonald R, Dodson MC. Teens' experiences of harsh parenting and exposure to severe intimate partner violence: Adding insult to injury in predicting teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence. 2012;two:125–128. [Google Scholar]
• Kandel DB, Davies M. Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents. Archives of Full general Psychiatry. 1982;39:1205–1212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kessler RC, Magee WJ. Childhood adversities and developed low: Basic patterns of association in a United states of america national survey. Psychological Medicine. 1993;23:679–690. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kim HK, Pears KC, Capaldi DM, Owen LD. Emotion dysregulation in the inter-generational manual of romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Family Psychology. 2009;23:585–595. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kim J, Cicchetti D. Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010;51:706–716. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kinsfogel KM, Grych JH. Interparental disharmonize and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating cerebral, emotional and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:505–515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lavoie E, Hebert Thousand, Tremblay RE, Vitaro Due east, Vezina L, McDuff P. History of family unit dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by boyish boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2002;30:375–383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lichter EL, McCloskey LA. The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role behavior and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2004;28:344–357. [Google Scholar]
• MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ. A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science. 2009;ten:87–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect outcome: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004;39:99–128. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Magdol Fifty, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Silva PA. Developmental antecedents of partner corruption: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998;107:375–389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Margolin Yard, Cordis EB. The effects of family and customs violence on children. Almanac Review of Psychology. 2000;51:445–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Maughan A, Cicchetti D. Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children's emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development. 2002;73:1525–1542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal arbitration. Psychological Methods. 2007;12:23–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McCloskey LA, Lichter EL. The contribution of marital violence to boyish aggression across different relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003;eighteen:390–412. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén LK, Muthen BO. Mplus user's guide. seventh ed. Los Angeles: Writer; 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Preacher KJ, Hayes AE. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect furnishings in multiple mediator models. Beliefs Research Methods. 2008;40:879–891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reyes HLM, Foshee VA, Bauer DJ, Ennett ST. The role of heavy alcohol use in the developmental process of desistance in dating aggression during adolescence. Periodical of Aberrant Child Psychology. 2011;39:239–250. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Simons RL, Lin K, Gordon LC. Socialization in the family unit of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998;60:467–478. [Google Scholar]
• Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review. 2008;28:78–106. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Thompson EH, Trice-Black S. Schoolhouse-based group interventions for children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Family unit Violence. 2012;27:233–241. [Google Scholar]
• Vujeva HM, Furman W. Depressive symptoms and romantic human relationship qualities from adolescence through emerging machismo: A longitudinal examination of influences. Periodical of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2011;40:123–135. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Weinberg A, Klonsky ED. Measurement of emotion dysregulation in adolescents. Psychological Assessment. 2009;21:616–621. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wekerle C, Wolfe DA, Hawkins DL, Pittman A, Glickman A, Lovald Exist. Babyhood maltreatment, posttraumatic stress symptomatology and adolescent dating violence: Considering the value of boyish perceptions of abuse and a trauma mediational model. Evolution and Psychopathology. 2001;13:847–871. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wolf KA, Foshee VA. Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent dating violence. Periodical of Family Violence. 2003;18:309–316. [Google Scholar]
• Wolfe D, Wekerle C, Scott One thousand, Straatman A, Grasley C. Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma. Periodical of Abnormal Psychology. 2004;113:406–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Yap MBH, Allen NB, Sheeber 50. Using an emotion regulation framework to understand the role of temperament and family processes in risk for adolescent depressive disorders. Clinical Child and Family unit Psychology. 2007;10:180–196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

armsteadpardens.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692054/

Share this post